Another “Trick” from the CRU Inquiry

A new controversy involving another “trick” by the Boulton-Russell Inquiry. Today’s post is prompted by a new sentence added to the Inquiry FAQs and an article by Channel Four on the controversial Boulton CV here. As so often, a bit of a backstory.

In the press conference announcing the Inquiry, Sir Muir Russell made the following undertaking:

Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.

The day after submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry closed, Russell revealed that this undertaking had been betrayed, first with the appointment of Philip Campbell, editor of Nature (who honorably resigned within hours of being challenged) and second with the appointment of Geoffrey Boulton, who had worked at UEA for 18 years from 1968-1986 and who had multiple links to the Climate Science community – making over a dozen speeches and interviews on climate change in the past two years.

The Boulton-Russell Inquiry played down both Boulton’s links to the University of East Anglia and especially to the Climate Science community. In the week following his appointment, Boulton’s links to the Climate Science community were gradually reported on here, at Bishop Hill’s and elsewhere.

On Feb 16, 2006, CA reader oneuniverse pointed out that a Boulton CV online in China here said that Boulton had been a “contributor to G8 preparatory groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” (also discussed in CA thread here.)

The Boulton-Russell Team has taken note of this discussion, with the CRU Inquiry FAQs adding the sentence bolded below to the FAQs on controversial Team member Geoffrey Boulton – the addition is undated, but is new in the last few days. (They adopt the practice of the other Team in not actually citing their critics)

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at. A purported CV of Professor Boulton in circulation contains a line claiming he has contributed submissions to the IPCC. This is false. He has not, and his name does not appear on any IPCC contributor list.

Channel Four’s article (today) has a lengthy discussion of the curious Boulton CV, in which Boulton strongly implies that the line in the CV was recently added and, in response to a question about whether he was implying “dirty tricks”, said that “people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now”

And when Channel 4 News asked about the claim on the CV, we received this puzzling reply: “The CV published online today is not correct. Professor Boulton has no idea where the final statement referring to the G8 and IPCC comes from, or where/when it has been added. The statement has not featured in his previous CVs.”

Professor Boulton sent Channel 4 News a copy of his 2007 CV which did not have the final line. Asked whether he was implying dirty tricks we received another email: “Professor Boulton has no CV with that line on it, because there is no reason for it”, adding: “people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now”.

Boulton’s insinuation that the embarrassing last line was inserted by Team opponents is total disinformation.

Demonstrating Boulton’s claim is disinformation is complicated by the fact that Boulton and/or his allies have deleted the Boulton CV from the original location. As a result, people can no longer inspect the original Word document for themselves. Channel Four has posted up their copy but the document properties in their saved version are changed in the save.) However, a CA reader wisely took a screenshot of the document properties of the controversial Boulton CV prior to its deletion (see below).
Figure 1. Document properties of Boulton CV downloaded from http://spa.xmu.edu.cn/edit/UploadFile/2007101883249846.doc before its deletion

Nini Yang is also mentioned in the version online at Channel Four. Nini Yang is an employee of the University of Edinburgh in his China Office. I wrote to Nini Yang on Feb 19 and again on Feb 22, unsuccessfully requesting an explanation of the situation.

However, in one of Boulton’s speeches in early 2008, he told the organizers that he had “recently arrived back from China where he has been having discussions there with governmental and NGO representatives around global climate change” – discussions that seem to have taken place around September 2007, when Boulton’s presence in China was attested at the website cited above (prior to the deletion.)

The sentence “contributor to G8 preparatory groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” in the Boulton CV was demonstrably no more recent than September 2007 – perhaps to enhance Boulton’s standing with the “governmental and NGO representatives” with whom he was discussing “global climate change”. Perhaps it was in the CV for some other reason. But whatever this claim being in the Boulton CV and whatever the provenance, it was in a September 2007 CV and not inserted by Boulton opponents in 2010.

Boulton and Nini Yang know this. Boulton should have admitted it, rather than insinuated that this clause was inserted by Boulton opponents in 2010 (“people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now”).

Maybe Boulton thinks that the deletion of the online CV and, after removal of the online evidence, the insinuation that his opponents inserted the controversial clause, is a “good way of dealing with a problem”.

But it isn’t. It’s a trick.

Needless to say, this is only one incident involving Boulton that makes his participation in the Inquiry a mockery of Russell’s original undertaking that “it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find”.

129 Comments

Does this also count as another “trick” by UEA, or is this simply a misunderstanding or unclear words?

On the UEA’s page describing correspondence with the ICO, it says: “The existence or otherwise of prima facie evidence is insufficient to reach any conclusions about this matter.”

Why does it say “or otherwise”?

Are UEA suggesting that there some doubt about whether the prima facie evidence even exists?

I was under the impression that there is no question that the prima facie evidence exists, as the ICO clearly states it does in their January 29th letter to UEA, and UEA also states prima facie evidence exists in their own submission to parliament.

I thought that the question was not whether the prima facie evidence exists, but whether a legal conclusion has been draw on it.

What is he going to do if people repeatedly bring up his speeches and such? I know he could claim he never made those speeches (and get himself only deeper in trouble) or that he was lying in the speeches (and bring up questions of just how much he’s been lying now). And even if he gets repeatedly cornered and forced to admit the truth, we know he’s not going to resign; he has too much vested in making sure this comes out the way he’s already decided it will (and I think it’s obvious to all that the case has been already decided). The only way to be rid of him is to get him removed and, well… I don’t see that happening.

And notice how he has the spindoctors working overtime on this. Part of UEA? Nope. Spun that to be people choosing to add it in “in the last minute.”

So the timeline matches 2008. His CV given to channel 4, states “in press” about this article, which could only mean that the CV was written after 2007. This is confirmed by the “Properties” of the Word document.

Unless he was writing his 2007 CV a year after the fact, it appears that the so-called “2007 CV” was actually “2008 CV”. I can’t think of any good reason to back date a CV.

Also, as noted by Jean S, Google Cache still shows the 2007 CV, on the Chinese site, and it shows the critical line about contributing to the IPCC.

In going to the Inquiry FAQS link I noticed that they would be looking to see, “whether they should have better procedures for managing their research and keeping their data safe.” (“they” refers to UAE)

It seems that it is implicit in the investigation that it is appropriate for scientists to keep their data and methods secret. “Safe” wouldn’t mean safe from harm as there is no allegation that the data was changed or damaged so “safe” must refer to safe from disemination. They don’t ask whether it SHOULD be kept secret but whether they should be BETTER at keeping it secret.

That doesn’t bode well for an openminded investigation of the science as practiced at UAE.

It’s not the number of links, as I understand it, but that certain URLs – or more strictly, domains, I guess – are considered suspect by the WordPress spam filter and require the blog moderator to confirm the post.

1. Download cv07.doc from Channel 4 web site to your computer, and save it to a folder of your choice. Do NOT open in it in Word or another program. This is the Channel 4 says it received from Geoffrey Boulton, and that Boulton identified as his 2007 CV.

The purpose of using a hex editor is it allows you to see every bit and byte inside the file, rather than just the currently visible text in Word.

3. Click Open… on File menu. Then select the cv07.doc file,

4. The contents of the cv07.doc file are now visible in the hex editor

5. Click Goto on the Address menu. A dialogue box is displayed. Make sure the “decimal” radio button is selected. And enter the number 880140 in the blank space beneath the decimal/hexadecimal buttons, then click OK.

6. This moves you down to location 880140 (which is also known asD6EOC) in the file.

8. So the question is why did a copy of Boulton’s 2007 CV contain a reference to “CVGATE” and a reference to an ITN reporter’s email address?

9. IMPORTANT NOTE: I do *not* assert that Boulton himself was responsible for the appearance of this text in the CV07.doc file – it may have been altered as a result of actions at Channel 4 after they received the file from Boulton but before they placed it on their web site. Or it may have been altered somebody else, if they forwarded it to Channel 4.

Can it be that his lofty eminence, the Regius Professor and Vice Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Geoffrey Boulton, OBE, FRS, FRSE, is a trickster?

It admits here that his research is in the field of climatic change. So why pretend he has no links to the climate science community?
If this is some strange attempt at a trick, its not very effective.

His CV (with the offending details regarding being an advisor on climate change to the UK Government and to the European Commission, as well as the claim that he was a contributor to the G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change) is still accessible through that page.

(Using Google translate): “Geoffrey Boulton, vice president respectively, were also invited to organize this trip, entitled “University of Edinburgh, and the United Kingdom and European research universities policies” and “Oceans and Climate Change” lecture.”

(Note: you should not assume that this text necessarily appears as a reuslt of some action by Boulton, it is possible that the cv07.doc file may have been altered by Channel 4 before publishing, or by others who forward it to Channel 4).

I have a post on this forum (awaiting moderation) with full details of how to see this to yourself, but if you can not wait, the explanation is already visible is also on Bishop Hill.

(Steve: I also accidentally doubled post on the Google cache, one which version of which is awaiting moderation. Sorry.)

I think this is an artifact of the channel 4 reporter forwarding the file using Word.
Word 2007 has more property variables, which can be viewed under the Custom properties tab.
CVGATE and Tom Clarke are shown there;)

Steve: Yes. these are artifacts of the save. Consult the screenshot that I provided for how it looked before the save. Channel 4 didn’t know how to save it without altering the properties (nor do I). But if you do a screenshot before saving, you can get the original properties as shown in the headpost.

Google: geoffrey boulton “science policy in Europe and UK”. Translate the first entry to English, and there is what looks like a 2007 blog entry of a chinese student Lei with a reminder to attend Boulton’s lecture. His CV follows and, in the last line, there is the mention of the contribution to intergovernmental panels.

So, either Boulton claimed intergovernmental credentials while in China in 2007, or the skeptics have penetrated google in yet another example of the depths to which they will stoop to vilify the most honorable Team.

Indeed, this is a telling find: it means that the CV as posted on – snip –
website has not subsequently been tampered with. Any “changes” that Professor Boulton might wish to insinuate have taken place (presumably without his approval), clearly occurred in 2007, not in the context of the Muir Russell inquiry.

In response to a query on this from Channel 4 News, the Review Panel replied that “The statement has not featured in his previous CVs.” Presumably, they relied on Prof. Boulton for this misinformation.

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.

I note in the FAQ’s on the Inquiry’s website, that it says “Professor Boulton has had no formal contact with the IPCC.” Is it therefore possible that he had informal contact? (I fired off an email to the Inquiry, asking this point.)

Even the renunciation of the 2007 CV is strangely formalistic. There’s always a danger in parsing language too closely – one can find things perhaps not actually intended by the author. But still:

“A purported CV of Professor Boulton in circulation contains a line claiming he has contributed submissions to the IPCC. This is false. He has not, and his name does not appear on any IPCC contributor list.”

The 2007 CV didn’t actually say that he had contributed “submissions” to the IPCC – merely that he was a “contributor” (a much broader concept: it could be editing, reviewing, commenting, etc.). Moreover, the denial ignored the claim that he had been a “contributor” to the “G8 Preparatory Groups”.

The claim that he didn’t appear on any “IPCC contributor list” was equally odd. As Channel 4 discovered, these lists are not well maintained (perhaps borrowing a page from Dr. Jones’s approach to organization?). His appearance on such a list, moreover, does not preclude involvement.

So, perhaps he was an informal “contributor”? (Or, alternatively, perhaps he “bodged” his CV – with an “artificial correction” for a particular event he was attending?)

They also haven’t addressed the statement from the 2007 CV which avers that Boulton was “an advisor to the UK Government and European Commission on climate change.” Or, maybe he wasn’t that, either?

Alternatively, since they did not deny these latter two claims, perhaps he did act as a contributor to the G8 preparatory groups and was a governmental advisor on climate change?

I think the better translation for ‘wirkte im’ would be “worked with” rather than “looked at”. Perhaps a German speaker could comment.

So maybe:
Geoffrey Boulton worked with the “G8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, received the Kirk Bryan Medal from the Geological Society of America, is a recipient of the Seligman Crystals from the International Glaciological Society (2002) and the David Tedford Award for services to science.

I do translation work professionally here in Germany, and so in English I’d write:
Geoffrey Boulton contributed to the G8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, received the Kirk Bryan Medal of the Geological Society of America, is a recipient of the Seligman Crystals of the International Glaciological Society (2002) and the David Tedford Award for services to science. An outstanding honour is the Lyell Medal of the Geological Society (London, 2006); in addition he has been awarded three honorary doctorate degrees.”

“mitwirken” could be anything from making a small, modest contribution to something very important. However, if the contribution is important, some other word would be used to convey it. But because his contribution was probably minor or modest, the work “mitwirken” is used. The text implies he was involved in the IPCC endeavour, but his contribution was minor.

“wirkte im” means precisely ‘was avtive in’ where the exact kind of action is not specified.

As serveral already have pointed out, the common interpretation would be ‘participated in’. ‘contributed to’ or ‘had some part in’ rather than a more formal ‘was officially engaged in’ or ‘was a co-worker/author’.

The Germans are sticklers for such details and particularly when it comes formal titles and official matters. Moreover, given Boultons career path, it is hardly conceivable that he understated his merits on his CV. More likely, he’d bolster it a bit where he can.

Based on this, but also the careful wording inte of the disclaimers in the Q/A and his interview, I agree with those who think there was a more informal connection, that there seems to be concerted team effort to cover-up his tracks and that he is digging at the bottom of his rabbit hole.

Heck, he/they maybe still think that they are dealing only with the journalists and the press/media, and that these things work like they used to … or they are calculating that the broader public can be lulled by maneuvers like this. Who knows?

Of course, to be charitable, this doesn’t mean the Boulton gave the University this information. Its possible that in preparation for the laudatio, rather than asking Boulton for his bio, the University of Heidelberg instead used a Chinese search engine to navigate to an obscure Chinese language web page to find a bio for Boulton where the IPCC reference had been mistakenly inserted and, in error, used that as the basis for the laudatio.

I might be repeating what mpaul was snipped for above, but I found another copy on a different Chinese server. It has the “contributor to G8 preparatory groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” statement in it and was last modified on 10/17/2007. I’m not going to list the link as I don’t want it to disappear. I have it open on my laptop now, anyone know how to save it without changing the modified date?

IPCC is NOT noted in the Highlights section. Surely this would have been a reasonable thing to highlight
—————-
Main Heading
9. CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE & RESEARCH POLICY
[Sub headings]
[Then list of contributions]

The final sub heading (IPCC involvement) is NOT followed by a list of contributions. It is incomplete. There is no point in having that heading.
——————-
Format
final sub heading is not formatted as the others. – Added at later time?
———————–
There is no REFEREED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES section after the final truncated para.
———————–

Properties

Created 2007/09/19
Last Saved Nini Yang
Revision Number 2
Total editing time [irrelevant as my viewing time included but perhaps less than 20minutes]
Pages 4
Paragraphs 120
lines 213
words 1515
characters 8651
characters with spaces 10119

General
Created 19 September 2007 11:12:00
Modified 18 October 2007 03:30:15
Accessed [- irrelevant. accessed by me.]
——-
Spell checking is set to US (why?) Spelling is English (e.g. Characterised ).
Last save was deliberately set to US spellcheck.
——————–

Conclusion
The doc at archt.xmu.edu.cn/news/p.doc (and as supplied by McIntyre to ch4) is a work in progress.
and probably not done by Geoffrey Boulton.
Headings are incorectly formatted.
Final para added but never fully implemented. Probably done by Nini Yang.

Why has a Chinese university a copy of his CV?

Steve: I pointed out that Nini Yang was the last editor – it’s not as though you discovered this. I observed in my post that Nini Yang was an employee of the University of Edinburgh. I asked her for elucidation of this clause and she refused to provide it. IT seems quite possible that Nini Yang added this sentence – perhaps to gild Boulton’s credentials. As too often, you’re not addressing the question that I asked about – Boulton’s insinuations that the sentence was added in 2010 by his opponents. This is manifestly untrue. Why and by who it was included in 2007 remains a mystery,

He gave a talk there on 23 October 2007. His CV was posted as part of the coverage.

The other big difference between this CV and the one he handed out to Channel 4, was that this one includes a claim that he was an advisor on climate change to both the UK Government and the European Commission. That claim is well integrated in first substantive paragraph.

1. It’s easy to change the content of an unencrypted Word document without messing with the properties (or rather to update the properties after making the changes).

2. It’s not really relevant (for the inquiry) whether the sentence was added by Nini Yang or some scriptkid or someone else if it’s not true.

3. The CV has appeared now (as in ‘surfaced in the blogosphere’ now, not necessarily ‘been manufactured’ now) because you want to question his objectivity as a panel member of inquiry [and this is what he imho is insinuating].

Your entry here is inconsistent with the email panel’s assertion that “The statement has not featured in his previous CVs.” Prof. Boulton does not merely suggest that his enemies have exposed this information to discredit him – he claims that it was never part of his CV. That is clearly false.

Number 3 is just my take on what _I think_ Boulton wanted to convey to us. Maybe that final entry was added by accident, maybe he thought someone had added it with malicious intent, who knows, but I really think it doesn’t matter too much ==> from his statements it seems quite clear that Boulton has a predetermined view about at least some aspects of climate science.

I don’t accept that this automatically should disqualify anyone, but that’s also just my opinion. Finding someone with extensive knowledge about climate science without any predetermined views seems challenging.

Here’s another html copy on a Chinese blog that also contains the “contributor to G8 preparatory groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” statement. Looks like it was posted announcing Boulton’s lecture back in October 2007.

I think that’s the blog that David Longinotti is referring to above. I’d certainly take that as the date of the posting. The Chinese characters in front of the date/time, translate as “new lectures” (or “fresh talks”: given the subject matter, it probably meant “talks” = “lectures” and “fresh” = “new”)

It’s difficult to see how anyone could have changed the document on the Sino site, that is a date stamp, by the look of it.

Just speculating, but from the hubris being displayed by Dr. Boulton one has to assume that he feels pretty safe. Just like the original letters his response to prima facie evidence is to say it doesn’t exist, or in his case someone else put it in, when clearly there is every chance that somewhere on the web, if indeed it was originally in there, there will be evidence that it was. The “dark forces at work” stuff just won’t rub. So why the confidence?

He is a well known climate change activist, he’s signed the letter sent out by Dr.Julia Slingo, at UK taxpayer’s expense, supporting the CRU, his CV clearly states he’s worked with the IPCC, which may be his way of “bigging” himself up, so he’s clearly unsuited to act in any way in an inquiry into the CRU.

He’s not only doing a disservice to academia, he’s doing a disservice to the inquiry, and to the people at the CRU who are under investigation because if the outcome exhonerates them there will be a continual outcry that the outcome was fixed.

What we need to know from Sir Muir is the process by which he chose the panel.

I hypothesise here, but as a former civil servant I expect Sir Muir asked what is the outcome that is required? He then made appropriate choices, just as he would have done for his former political ministers.

In response to thefordprefect Posted Feb 27, 2010
Steve: I pointed out that Nini Yang was the last editor …
I asked her for elucidation of this clause and she refused to provide it. IT seems quite possible that Nini Yang added this sentence …the question that I asked about – Boulton’s insinuations that the sentence was added in 2010 by his opponents. This is manifestly untrue. Why and by who it was included in 2007 remains a mystery,

Your insinuations take the biscuit!
It’s a TRICK you claim!
It was edited ny Nini Yang or persons unknown so why involve Boulton until you know?
“she refused to provide it” from your header it reads as if she did not reply, NOT that she replied but refused to give the information.

Ever considered the effect of Chinese new year. Didn’t you take the whole of christmas and new year off to be with family? Were there not many emails to be dealt with on return? If you knew your response would be strewn across thousands of Blog pages, wouldn’t you be a teensy bit careful on what response you gave in case your words get misrepresented?

(WIKI – …assigns 4707 to the year beginning February 14, 2010,:
First day
The first day is for the welcoming of the deities of the heavens and earth, officially beginning at midnight.
Second day
Incense is burned at the graves of ancestors as part of the offering and prayer ritual.The second day of the Chinese New Year is for married daughters to visit their birth parents.
Third day
The third day is known as “chì kǒu”
Fifth day
In northern China, people eat jiǎo zi (simplified Chinese: 饺子; traditional Chinese: 餃子), or dumplings on the morning of Po Wu (破五).
Seventh day
The seventh day, traditionally known as renri 人日, the common man’s birthday,
Eighth day
Another family dinner to celebrate the eve of the birth of the Jade Emperor. However, everybody should be back to work by the 8th day.
Ninth day
The ninth day of the New Year is a day for Chinese to offer prayers to the Jade Emperor of Heaven (天宮) in the Taoist Pantheon.
Tenth day
The other day when the Jade Emperor’s birthday is celebrated.
Thirteenth day
On the 13th day people will eat pure vegetarian food to clean out their stomach due to consuming too much food over the last two weeks.
Fifteenth day
The fifteenth day of the new year is celebrated as yuán xiāo jiéThis day often marks the end of the Chinese New Year festivities.
)

Given that Ms Yang was likely involved as the point person in setting up the trip, her name as the last save on the CV is no more significant than finding your name on the document properties once you downloaded it and saved it to your hard drive. (She probably received a copy by email, saved it to her hard drive and forwarded it to the university in question.) There is no evidence (one way or the other) to indicate that she altered the CV (or altered it without Boulton’s knowledge).

I note that Boulton did not deny that he was an “advisor” to the UK Government and the European Commission on climate change – which is contained in the part of the CV you describe as the “highlights”. Yet, I’ve not seen that elsewhere and it certainly isn’t in the 2008 version of his CV that he tried to fob off on Channel 4.

The response from Boulton (or made on his behalf – the language reported by Channel 4 of the emails they received is rather odd), does clearly seek to imply that someone has maliciously altered the CV. Of that, there is no evidence. Unless, of course, you think Ms Yang did make the changes without consent and is in the pay of the Exxon-Mobil cabal. It is also pretty clear from the blog cited by David Longinotti that the CV was posted in that form in 2007 (and not subsequently altered, by, for example, a blogger of malicious intent).

Moreover, notwithstanding the protestations made on Professor Boulton’s behalf in the email exchange with Channel 4, it does appear that he has, on at least one other occasion, been honoured (in part) for his work with the “G8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.” Now, if he hadn’t supplied the University of Heidelberg with that information, where did they get it from?

At the very least, Professor Boulton needs to very clearly address these issues.

Nini Yang’s name ONLY gets applied to the document if she saves it from Word. Opening in word should not force a save on exit unless changes are made. Saving the doument from an Email would not append her name to the document. The fact that the proofing tool (spell checker) is set to US mode tends to show that it was being edited by someone preparing it for the non-UK market.

It seems that everyone agrees that the document has a final unknown (unprovable) author. It is not a document that Boulton thinks of as his CV. The statement certainly is not something he carried forward and is therefore something of no substence, or an innaccuracy. The document he forwarded to CH4 was written sometime after 2007, but looks more like a finished version.

Why would Boulton have to explain the existence of a draft version?

The man must be near retirement
His CV shows him as a scientist of repute whose woek has been recognised by the state. It is despicable that you now consider this wothless in comparison to some unproven statement on his CV. He does not need to prove/improve his status by appearing on an inquiry panel. There is absolutely no logic to your accusations.

This whole episode has as much logic to it as has suggesting that commented out code in the stolen code from CRU proves they must have had the intent to deceive!

As I noted in my comment, in order to be listed as the last editor, Ms Yang had only to save the document to her hard drive, before sending it on to the Chinese hosts (or posting it on their website). She did not have to make any changes to the document, to be listed as the final editor. I’m not sure on what you would base the claim that there were other unknown editors – there’s simply no evidence of that at all.

The CV was used in connection with a talk Professor Boulton gave in China in October 2007. It was not a “draft”: in fact, it was a publicly advertised document. As such, he does need to explain how this got out there and what it means. That he has other versions of his CV floating around also is not surprising. It is not uncommon to tailor CVs to particular occasions (based on subject matter, nature of involvement, etc.), adding or subtracting various biographical details based on relevance to the particular event.

As noted, the uncertain connection between Professor Boulton and the “G8 [etc., etc.]” also appears in relation to his receiving a lifetime award from the University of Heidelberg. So, this particular claim has appeared on more than one occasion.

As for his participation on the inquiry, it’s my sense that he really wants to be involved. He is not unbiased in his approach: rather, he is an active advocate of the CAGW position. His activist position on these matters is amply demonstrated by his public pronouncements (as shown by the various links to his talks on this site & on Bishop Hill’s site). It is that potential for bias that makes his presence on the “independent” inquiry a cause for concern.

As for your statement: “It is despicable that you now consider this [Boulton’s past work] wothless [sic] in comparison to some unproven statement on his CV.”

I’ve made no comment about his past work; and do not think that I’ve implied anything in this regard, except in relation to his position on CAGW. The concern arises from the question as to whether Professor Boulton is an appropriate appointee to an “independent” inquiry into matters related to the CRU. On that basis, both his advocacy position on CAGW and the claims in his CV are relevant.

I also would like to know what advisory position he held with the UK government and the European Commission on climate change matters, which also appears in the 2007 version of the CV. Those roles also could impact on whether he should be regarded as an appropriate appointee to inquiry.

Ironically I lived in Xiamen for two years, and right at XiaDa (the university) for part of that. That is the most beautiful city in China, and must be one of the nicest campuses in the world. Fond memories cruising that site : ).

Russell revealed that this undertaking had been betrayed, first with the appointment of Philip Campbell, editor of Nature (who honorably resigned within hours of being challenged) and second with the appointment of Geoffrey Boulton, who had worked at UEA for 18 years from 1968-1986 and who had multiple links to the Climate Science community – making over a dozen speeches and interviews on climate change in the past two years.

This makes it sound as if Russell accepts Boulton is not a suitable member of the panel, but this is not the case.

I think far too much is being made of this particular piece of tortology. If Intergovernmental Panels is read as intergovernmental panels then the problem effectively goes away.

In German, nouns nearly always begin with a capital letter so in a German language source, like that cited above, it would quite probably be written as Intergovernmental Panel… It is not unreasonable to expect that upper-case notation to be carried over into English.

It means ‘panels between governments’ (as per G6, G20, EU, UN, and a host of other intergovernmental groups…) and not the IPCC.

IMO this is a red herring and it’s diverting attention away from the host of very real questions surrounding how and why an organisation with deep rooted warmist beliefs, like the Royal Society of Edinburgh, can be allowed to have effective control of a so-called independent inquiry?

While in China it seems he was there for an MBA exchange program[1]. Gave a lecture on policies at research universities in the UK, and I believe on Oceans and Climate Change[2] (not 100% sure that one was him atm). Also seems to have taken a tour of the Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science there [3]. I guess that would be why the resume was beefed up a bit with the climate stuff. Fwiw, it wouldn’t surprise me a ton if that was just embellishment from the hosts — but to insinuate it was inserted by opponents, backdated, and then hidden all over secure servers in China is asking people to believe a LOT. He seems comfortable telling a lie imo.

Why doesn’t Geoffrey Boulton just explain what was meant by the ‘G8 Intergovernmental Panels on climate change’ – which probably do have nothing to do with the UN IPPC – rather than all this obfuscation?

26 February 2008 DUBAI — A new study on climate change has revealed that the coastlines, sea levels and temperatures in the GCC countries could already be changing due to global warming.

According to a press release, the map of the Middle East could be reshaped by rising seas and populations displaced by global warming.
The research, carried out by Professor Geoffrey Boulton of the University of Edinburgh, will be discussed this week at the British University in Dubai (BUiD).
The study will attempt to analyse the extent to which global warming will impact the world and the Arabian Gulf in particular over the coming years.
“Human impact on the planet has accelerated over the last hundred years, with the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere being radically altered by burning fossil fuels.
“Understanding that impact and agreeing on steps forward is a critical imperative for the future,” said Professor Boulton, a Regius Professor with responsibility for Edinburgh’s international initiatives, who also leads the Global Change Group, one of the largest major research groups in the field of Geosciences.
One of the predicted impacts of climate change, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is a potential rise of global temperatures from between 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius.
This could radically affect sea levels, caused by melting ice caps, and potentially submerge coastal areas.”

I downloaded the p.doc from the Chinese site (their version of Boulton’s CV). I looked at it in a hex editor. I can’t see anything especially interesting. It is 100,000 bytes so I have not looked at it in great detail.

I have also looked over the CV that Channel 4 got from Boulton in more detail. I have not looked at everything in detail (it’s over 800,000 bytes!). The only interesting bit is the Tom Clarke / ITN / CVGATE bit. Which we have an explanation for (somehow it got inserted by Word).

Looking just at the two files, I would say the known or likely facts about them are:

1. The Chinese version of the CV was almost certainly last edited in 2007:

2. The Chinese version of the CV does indeed contain a reference at the bottom to the IPCC.

3. However look carefully, the reference to the IPCC is used as a subheading, like the subheadings above. And has no bullet points of specific listed contribution, unlike the subheadings over.

4. The Chinese version of the CV was *probably*, as we know, not last edited by Boulton himself, but by somebody called Nini Yang

5. The only interesting thing in Channel 4 CV version is the reference to CV Gate, and Tom Clarke. We know this information was an artifact inserted by the email forwarding process, rather than Boulton himself..

6. The Channel 4 CV does appear to be a different file from the Chinese version (for example, the Channel 4 version is more than 8X as large a file for starters), but there’s no reason to suggest it’s not genuine, and there’s no reason to suggest it’s been back-dated.

Other known and likely facts (not from the CV) have come out:

7. Although various news and other references to Boulton’s participation in the IPCC have been found online, as far as I know no specific IPCC contribution has been attributed to him.

My hypotheses are thus:

A. Boulton has not made any specific contribution to the IPCC (Justification: point 7 – plus if there was a specific contribution by Boulton to the IPCC surely it would have been identified by now?)

B. The reference to the IPCC in the Chinese version of the CV (Justification: point 2) was added in 2007 (Justification: point 1), not by a skeptic but by somebody who wanted to list them, most likely Nini Yang (Justification: point 4). This person was however unable to identify any specific contributions by Boulton to the IPCC (Justification: points 3 & 6)

C. The CV sent by Boulton to Channel 4 is a genuine version of his 2007 CV (Justification: Point 6).

I think all the above hypotheses are highly likely to be true.

If you want to test them, I would suggest the following areas of research:

I. Can you actually find an IPCC contribution that can be attributed to Boulton?

II. Can you get a copy of the CV that Boulton sent to Channel 4, BEFORE it’s been processed/altered by ITN/Tom Clarke. Look at in a hex editor. Also, there are tools for spelunking DOC files (since some of the info in them is encoded), which may reveal more.

tldr – Short version – The CV on the Chinese websites was not faked in 2010 by skeptics. However it was not necessarily prepared by Boulton, and doesn’t actually contain evidence of IPCC involvement by him.

Searching for all references to Boulton at xmu.edu.cn came up with this hit (amongst many others)

jdx.xmu.edu.cn/message/list1.asp?id=25

It’s very strange: earlier today I was getting a 404 everytime I tried to follow the link, and all of a sudden it now works, but I digress.

A translation of that content from Google’s cache includes this paragraph:

Vice-Chancellor University of Edinburgh, Professor (Prof.Geoffrey Boulton), he is a member of the Royal Society, the Royal Professor, is also a member of the British Prime Minister Senate, technical advisers, and is also the Scottish Knowledge Center for Conversion, the European Research Universities Committee, the Chairman of the Royal and Social Commission, as well as vice chairman of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee. His main research areas are climate and environmental change and energy;

The page seems to be a newsletter that summarizes university current events around spring 2006.

Geoffrey Boulton, vice president respectively, were also invited to organize this trip, entitled “University of Edinburgh, and the United Kingdom and European research universities policies” and “Oceans and Climate Change” lecture.

Once a mistake, twice incompetence, thrice a career threatening habit.

Boultons travels to China, the Middle East and Germany have revealed a character who is desperate to impress his hosts on the important issue of climate change. What better to impress the locals than to be introduced as being a ‘contributer’ to the IPCC process – Nobel Prize and all that. Be it a CV, and address or a TV headline.

This was no mistake on the part of Boulton’s hosts, this was no attempt by the blogosphere to smear. This was a delibrate act by Boulton to hype his own credentials.

This is the story that the main stream media have missed. A reading of CA and Bishop Hill will reveal to Channel 4 News themsleves that they had an opportunity to claim an another scalp but utterly botched it. Now that will be embarrassing for what is considered to be the UK’ top news programme.

Should Boulton be part of Muir Russell review? My answer is of course not, Boulton is neither impartial nor straight.

But what will do most damage to UEA-CRU, a real impartial review or a badly bodged whitewash?

From the C4 story linked in the head post the statement referenced is:

“Professor Boulton sent Channel 4 News a copy of his 2007 CV which did not have the final line. Asked whether he was implying dirty tricks we received another email: “Professor Boulton has no CV with that line on it, because there is no reason for it”, adding: “people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now”.”

This does not specify who “another email” has been received from. C4 should clarify this as it is the subsequent email which insinuates there are conclusions to be drawn from the additional line.

I posted this on Bishop Hill yesterday (and also on the Unthreaded thread here).

The copy of the 2007 cv sent to Channel 4 news doesn’t have this final line about the G8 and the intergovernmental panels. However, if you check the properties of this Word doc., it’s creation date is 3 July 2008, not 2007!

(There’s no significance to the inclusion of Tom Clarke’s name or CVGATE: the file seems to have been emailed to Tom Clarke as an attachment; CVGATE must have been the subject heading of the email. Word seems to include this information in the properties automatically.)

I emailed both Nick Scott Plummer and Tom Clarke to tell them about the anomalous date, and received a reply from Nick today saying that he’s going to follow it up, and also the disappearance of the cv from the Chinese site.

FWIW: I was searching and previous commenters, in particular Copner, hit the highlights so this is may be more of a technical tip for Windows users. I use an open-source text editor called Notepad++ that also opens binary files. Nice for metadata. It also a has a read-only mode. That’s for people who might not want to use a hex editor. I also use openoffice for .doc. I have repeatedly looked at
2007101718310419.doc, p.doc, and a Chinese announcement for the Boulton lecture, 2007101883241339.doc, and seen no changes in the (properties) metadata.

One can open the CV .doc in OO and look at the properties under the file menu and find:

The two CV docs differ by 2 bytes according to openoffice. There is no change in the Created:/Modified: metadata on closing the file although the file created and file change dates correspond to when that file was created on my HD. My little mouse-wave on doc in folder balloon popup says Author: Geoffry Boulton Title: SHORT ACADEMIC CURRICULUM VITAE

I imagine Boulton will be an active “mentor” to the staff in his department. This URL (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/dstevens/)
gives the link to David Stevenson’s home page – one memeber of the Boulton School of GeoSciences. David S clearly states that he was a contributor to the IPCC assessment reports.

From David Stevensons home page – “I am a Reader in Atmospheric Modelling, with research interests in modelling atmospheric chemistry, in particular global scale tropospheric ozone and its interactions with climate change.

I am an Associate member of ACCENT (Atmospheric Composition Change – The European Network of Excellence), a member of the Royal Society Working Group on ‘Ground-level ozone in the 21st century’, a lead author on the 2007 HTAP (Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution) interim report, and a lead author on the ATTICA assessment of the impacts of transport on climate and ozone depletion. I have been a contributing author to several IPCC assessment reports, including Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/dstevens/

When you send a Word document (or any Office document) using Outlook 2003 (SP2 or greater) or using Outlook 2007, Outlook will insert some meta data into the document itself. It will not do this when you forward a document. Almost surely this is why the CVGATE and the ITN email address ended up in the released CV, and why the file is bigger. Likely Boulton emailed his CV, and Outlook inserted that information.

The questions remain, did Boulton send this particular CV from a collection of CV’s? (i.e. does he have any more recent ones)? And, who added the G8 and IPCC references? I would not be surprised that Nini Yang, did, and that Boulton may or may not have been aware of the addition. However, if it can be proved that he sent that modified CV to someone, or caused it to be posted on-line, then he owns the problem, regardless of the origin of the problem.

I’m fairly certain I saved a local copy of Boulton’s Xiamen U. CV. I won’t have access until tomorrow evening GMT, but if anyone requires a copy, please drop me an email at oneuniverse at anonymousspeech dot com, or let me know here.

There are, of course, serious limitations as to what can be conclusively derived from some of the various exegeses suggested in this thread.

For example, we know the Google translation into English of the entire key paragraph of the Heidelberg release, renders the initial phrase (Geoffrey Boulton wirkte im „G8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change“,) as follows:

There was no trick on my part, none at least that I am aware of. It was just what happenend. Machine translations are, shall we say, imprecise. Enough said on that.

Press releases advancing an institutional or personal agenda — or both — can be notoriously self-congratulatory and, to that extent, misleading.

However, we also all know that there is (or should be) a recognized premium associated with accuracy amongst academics, when it comes to the content of their work.

But, not entirely to a fault! Whilst no one wants to be proven wrong, could there be a fate worse than being tagged as “too cautious” . . . “over careful” . . . “unenterprising?” The only thing I can think of is “error-ridden.”

Regardless, Steve’s post does make a very strong case that Boulton’s actions, including his failure to just admit that he was at one time being quite openly touted (even if erroneously) as a “contributor to G8 preparatory groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change,” coupled with his quite disingenuous recent implication that the content of that former CV may have been the work of critics, are simply not forthcoming actions.

They are both defensive and they both smack of deceit . . . trickery.

Only an unreconstructed apologist could look at them and not become at least a bit suspicious.

That, one would think, was the last thing Sir Muir Russell should have wanted to occur.

Prof Palutikof was a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences, and Director of the Climatic Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia, UK, where she worked from 1979 to 2004. —- Her proudest moment to date was attending the ceremony in 2007 at which the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
She overlapped with Prof Boulton by 7 yrs and is mentioned in 11 ClimateGate emails. She was an innocent bystander.

His paper , no 68, may relate to:
Goodess, C.M. and Palutikof, J.P. (Editors)., 1991
“Proceedings of the International Workshop on Future Climate Change and Radioactive Waste Disposal, Norwich, November, 1989.”
This may indicate that he attended a workshop in Norwich – at CRU?? – in November 1989.

The conference was about the effects of climate change on the safety and uncertainty of deep burial of nuclear waste. Valid reasons for concern and study. Boulton’s paper that was cited in the report was probably from his work on glacial melting.

It’s possible in view of his strong links to gov. energy policy and nuclear in particular that he may have attended. But that is only speculation.

It looks like “I was wrong” is missing from Boulton’s vocabulary. Also missing is “I trusted faulty science from disciplines other than my own. I did not check them personally nor did any of my colleagues.” It is just too big for Boulton to face the possibility. “Evidence weak. Use bluster”.

On my Mac – and in the UK – I find the BBC Flash player can be more reliable than Parliament’s Microsoft-centric service. The Beeb page has the promising preview:

Science and Technology Committee

Watch live coverage of the committee taking evidence on the recent leaking of climate change data from 3pm on 1 March 2010.

In November 2009, e-mails and data from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked after a university server was hacked into.

The unit’s director, Professor Phil Jones, stepped down following the leak, whilst an independent review is carried out into the work of the unit

Allegations were made following the hacking that climate research data was being “manipulated”.

At the time that the theft of the data was revealed climate sceptics picked up on the word “trick” in one e-mail from 1999 and talk of “hiding the decline”.

Professor Jones – who will give evidence to the committee – said the e-mail was “taken out of context”.

Other people giving evidence will be Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, as well as a number of government scientists.

Go for it, Nig, Ben and Ric! It may be worth people from outside the country letting others know which means works best, if either does.

As a british citizen, I would just like to say thanks for making it harder for them to whitewash this. The video should have precluded him. They surely cannot believe that anything the report finds will turn back the tide. The more they try to push this, the more obvious it becomes it was political and not scientific. I wonder why they aren’t updating the Stern report with the new findings, to see if there is still an economic case for action….

Hypothesis. CRU’s publications are climate science. Authors of climate science publications are members of the climate science community. Boulton has links with his co-authors, some of which are members of the said community. Thus, he has links with the climate science community. DING!

Just looking at his pubications list at the end of the CV he sent to channel4 :

As a Member of the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology
Use of Dialogue in Public Policy (chair)
Priorities for UK Energy Strategy
Government Support for Nanotechnology
Strategic Investment in Science and Technology

Royal Society Reports
Science and Devolution (chair)
Radioactive Waste Disposal (chair)
The Work of the Committtee on Radioactive Waste Management (chair)
Energy – Economic Instruments
Strategy for the Management of Separated Plutonium (chair)

It seems he has very strong links to nuclear power generation and government energy policy.

It is well known that anyone who questions the accuracy or extent of AGW is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

Oddly much less is said about the influence of the nuclear industry that has just a much to gain as “big oil” has to loose.

When Thatcher created Met Office Hadley in 1988 it was all about breaking the miners, shutting down coal and increasing N.P.

Whatever Thatcher was playing at in 1988 – and I thought at the time (and still think) she was playing a long game vis-a-vis UNEP, not just trying to bash the remaining UK miners – it’s striking that her Chancellor at the time, Nigel Lawson, and one of her chief scientific advisers, Christopher Monckton, have become two of the most prominent ‘climate deniers’ in the world. And if you read Thatcher’s last book, Statecraft, I think she makes it crystal clear that she’s also a convinced sceptic – to put it mildly. And remember, unlike Lawson and Monckton Thatcher trained as a scientist – as a chemist – and only later got into law and politics.

I understand the depth of feeling on this issue in the UK from traditional mining communities. I also understand that this bit is very likely to be snipped! But I also feel deeply that the history is worth making as accurate as we can. I think by 1988 Thatcher was playing a much longer game. Having said which, she wasn’t necessarily right or wise, with the benefit of hindsight, in what she kicked off with John Houghton and the Met, leading to the IPCC. And I feel that snip coming on :)

I’m starting to wonder why this is on Climate Audit. Seems to me that if the alarmists can get Steve working on this political crap, they’ve neutralised one of their most effective critics. It was the hard maths coming from Climate Audit that got us to where we are today.

By all means, someone should be blogging on this. But can someone not take the load of Steve’s shoulders so he can go back to working on the real deal? Does no-one else know enough about the history of these issues?

It seems a shame that the great collective analytical brain that is Climate Audit is being wasted on these relative trivialities. It’s all very well showing that people are crooks and can’t be trusted, but you still need to pick holes in their work.

“It seems a shame that the great collective analytical brain that is Climate Audit is being wasted on these relative trivialities. It’s all very well showing that people are crooks and can’t be trusted, but you still need to pick holes in their work.”

Yeah , and then when all the hard work pays off and it goes prime-time they set up a whitewash inquiry with key figures in energy politics presented as totally independent scientific enquirers.

This is the logic next phase.

Keep digging the Bolton connection and it will show what’s behind the politics that has been driving the science ever since the conception of the IPCC.

Was it Dr. Pielke Jr. who said “whoever thinks this process has not been political from the outset has not been paying attention. ”

I have some sympathy with your view here, but there’s not much point in showing the errors in the mainstream science if the skeptical view is not heard. The Team and their cheerleaders attempt to prevent this by malicious attacks on the character and competence of critics like Mr. McIntyre, and by preventing publication of their work. Exposure of their tactics has resulted in some formal inquiries that might result in opening the scientific inquiry on global warming. But that will not happen if the inquirers are not objective, but instead have longstanding commitments to the ‘science’ of the Team. Hence, it is important to the science, albeit indirectly, that Boulton’s falsehoods concerning his cv be exposed.

I, too, have sympathy with your view. Though the statistical analyses were way beyond my understanding, it was what established CA as a premiere sight for critical assessments of various climate publications.

That being said, there is a brief period here where concerns about how climate science has been practiced are being listened to – and those concerns were what drove Steve to undertake his first forays into the field. He really has to participate in this process: if any benefit is to come from the past work, it will be that climate science is practiced in a fashion that is open, credible and reproducible.

(Though it would be nice to know what he thinks of Mann’s latest work…)

His paper , no 68, may relate to:
Goodess, C.M. and Palutikof, J.P. (Editors)., 1991
“Proceedings of the International Workshop on Future Climate Change and Radioactive Waste Disposal, Norwich, November, 1989.”
This may indicate that he attended a workshop in Norwich – at CRU?? – in November 1989.

I think it is hilarious that Boulton would try to bluff when the watchdogs include people who can use hex software to dissect documents and when his cvs are scattered around the world in multiple languages. Illinois had a gov who tried this strategy, and it did not help him so much.

“I’m starting to wonder why this is on Climate Audit. Seems to me that if the alarmists can get Steve working on this political crap, they’ve neutralised one of their most effective critics. It was the hard maths coming from Climate Audit that got us to where we are today.”

Steve’s post — this one — seems very much in keeping with what he has done all along, i.e., asking for and, thereafter, demanding an accounting or a valid “basis” for underlying claims being made. True, there may be no precise or demonstrable mathematical basis for verifying the on-going commitment of Sir Muir Russell to the public promises he made when he undertook this investigatory obligation. But, there is certainly a very solid way to test whether the inquiry is actually running in accordance with those initial commitments of his — in the first instance, by challenging whether those participating on the Committee are as truly independent as Sir Muir Russell publicly assured everyone that they would be, and that they would come to this work with no “tendencies” for preconception – having previously taken strong positions on the topic that signify or at least hint at a lack of ability to exercise independent judgment.

Those commitments of Russell’s went right to the heart of the problem. The initial suspicion about the science was (and is) that, to some extent, it was “first the sentence, then the verdict” science. And, because of the commitments made by Sir Muir Russell, ones that appear to conflict with the appointment of Boulton, the natural suspicion now is that it may become a “first the sentence, then the verdict” inquiry.

“By all means, someone should be blogging on this. But can someone not take the load of Steve’s shoulders so he can go back to working on the real deal? Does no-one else know enough about the history of these issues?”

We agree that someone should be blogging on this, but I’d argue that Steve is indeed working on the real deal. And, I’d also argue that no one knows as much “about the history of these issues.”

It seems a shame that the great collective analytical brain that is Climate Audit is being wasted on these relative trivialities. It’s all very well showing that people are crooks and can’t be trusted, but you still need to pick holes in their work.”

Dave, I’d say “relative trivialities” is exactly wrong. The defining mission and personnel make up of a body charged with determining whether members of a scientific community have become insular and possibly prejudicial in the pursuance of their work, is about as distant from trivial as you can get. I didn’t think anyone had been called a “crook” as such, but any proffer of evidence regarding, shall we say, “impropriety,” is strengthened by a demonstrable unwillingness to be forthcoming when inconsistencies are laid bare. The prior CV was an issue. The clear appearance is that Geoffrey Boulton tried to dissemble regarding that CV.

Combine that tendency to hide, or paper over, with picking holes in the work, and you have something manifestly more significant than just the occurrence of a few minor errors.

A “few minor errors” by the way, seems to be the current defense in vogue, which was perhaps first articulated by Phil Jones in his BBC interview, and which now has been taken public by Al Gore in his Op-Ed in the NY Times – “the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes.” Note the barely perceptible “at least!”

Michael Mann has recently said that that is what has characterized all that the deniers have done right from the start. In an interview with Chris Mooney (link beow), he said that what all the critics “do is to take some small technical part of an analysis, try to manufacture a controversy about that to, essentially to discredit the work to discredit the conclusions by finding some small potential flaw with one part of an analysis.”

And, it is also the line of defense underscoring the refusal of Rajendra K. Pachauri to step down from the IPCC.

Of course, Michael Mann, for his part, also seems to be taking a more conspiratorial line of defense as well. In that interview with Chris Mooney, he further goes on the offense and blames the entire basis for attacks on the science and on AGW proponents on a conspiratorial effort undertaken back in 2002, and since orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry and Republicans!

[…] making itself a dangerous enemy of the public, Blogosphere and climate change, Gust of hot air! Semantics and how a trick isn’t a trick when its a trick! Mother Jones cant see the forest for the […]